More Manntastic denigration from the ‘climate agitator in chief’ over the American Museum of Natural History

As first reported on WUWT yesterday, this press release went out on PRNewswire today. Meanwhile, the chief climate agitator himself, Michael Mann, who never misses an opportunity to promote himself, has penned an op-ed in the New York Times. More below.

Scientists Petition American Museum of Natural History to Stand against ‘Climate-Change’ Agitators, States Physicians for Civil Defense

TUCSON, Ariz., Feb. 6, 2018 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — More than 300 scientists have sent a letter and background information to the president of the American Museum of Natural History in response to demands to remove Rebekah Mercer, a generous donor, from the Board of Trustees, reports Physicians for Civil Defense.

These demands come from agitators waving signs in front of the museum and an open letter circulating on the internet that amassed signatures from self-styled scientists. These include well-known proponents of the catastrophic, human-caused global warming (now climate change) hypothesis, along with many with no apparent scientific credentials, observes Physicians for Civil Defense president, Jane M. Orient, M.D.

The protestors complain that the Mercer Family Foundation has donated to politicians they don’t like and to supporters of scientists who dissent from the climate-change narrative, defaming them as “ringleaders of climate denial.” In fact, dissent is essential to science, and those who attempt to silence it are truly anti-science, Dr. Orient stated.

The letter to AMNH reads: “The case for harm from catastrophic global warming is growing weaker as more is learned about the Earth’s climate system, and about the poor predictive power of computer climate models. The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide. And there is no doubt that policies advocated by many of the protestors will cause economic harm across the world, especially to those hoping to climb out of poverty.”

Signers of the letter include two Nobel laureates, Ivar Giaever (physics, 1973) and Kary Mullis (chemistry, 1993), and many other esteemed, highly accomplished scientists, notes Dr. Orient. “The American Museum of Natural History should not tarnish its long and honorable tradition by allowing political pressure and street theater to dictate its policy,”

Here’s an excerpt from the NYT op-ed:Rebekah Mercer Puts a Museum’s Credibility at Risk

By JAMES POWELL and MICHAEL E. MANN FEB. 5, 2018

Museums are vital cultural institutions. They provide a glimpse into the past, a record of what once was and an exploration of how the present came to be. They are social cornerstones, shaping public opinion in subtle yet profound ways.

In a world increasingly dominated by fake news, museums should stand as sanctuaries of truth and science. To do so, a natural-history museum must be accurate, faithful to the facts and trusted by the public. This is why it is so troubling that Rebekah Mercer continues to sit on the board of trusteesof the American Museum of Natural History.

Ms. Mercer and her family were important backers of President Trump. She has a stake in Breitbart News, and the family foundation has contributed millions of dollars to climate-change-denying politicians and organizations like the Heartland Institute, which says, “Global warming is not a crisis” and “There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.” According to the Mercer Family Foundation’s tax reports, it gave the Heartland Institute nearly $5.9 million from 2008 to 2016, more than the $4 million it donated to the American Museum of Natural History during that period.

Other climate-denial groups have also benefited from the Mercers’ largess. According to the foundation’s most recent tax filing, for 2016, obtained bythe Climate Investigations Center, those groups include the CO2 Coalition, $150,000 (“We are persuaded that the net effects of increasing CO2 will be very good for the world,” the group says); the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, $125,000 (“It is highly unlikely that future increases in the air’s CO2 content will produce any global warming,” according to the group); and the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, $200,000 (“several” members of its staff are “well known for their work” promoting a petition whose signatories are scientists “opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of ‘human-caused global warming,’” the institute’s website says).

These organizations are in clear conflict with the virtually unanimous international scientific consensus on climate change.

What is mind-blowing is that since the offending exhibit placard was installed in the early 1990’s, millions have people have visited, and until this alarmist mouthpiece went to visit, not one complaint was lodged.

The exhibit which was installed in 1993 summarised the scientific consensus at the time on “what caused the Ice Ages?”:

“The causes of the Ice Ages are not fully understood, but we know some factors that led to the first growth of the polar ice sheets. One was a decline in world temperatures over the previous 30 million years. Another was the formation, about 3 million years ago, of the Isthmus of Panama, which connected North and South America and diverted the oceans’ circulation to a more northward pattern. Since the first northern-hemisphere glaciers formed, 2.6 million years ago, the polar ice caps have expanded and contracted in response to variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, causing cold spells alternating with warmer periods, like the one we live in now.

There is no reason to believe that another Ice Age won’t come. In the past, warm cycles lasted about 10,000 years, and it’s been that long since last cool period. Human-made pollutants may also have an effect on the Earth’s climatic cycles.”

Zo, here at Chez Mann, we make ze soufflé like zo. We must use only temperature zenzitive eggs for ze soufflé, or else ze soufflé she will not rise at ze end. How do we know ze egg she is zenzitive to ze temperature? If she does not rise at ze end, voila-ze egg is not right. Zo we must remove ze invalid eggs, but tell no one! Nobody outside ze kitchen must know of ze bad eggs, especially the food-denializtz at Chez CA, very bad. Do not let zem in ze kitchen!

If Mann is so confident he is right why is he avoiding a final resolution of his law suit against Mark Steyn and has not complained to the courts that Steyn’s counter-suit has been on hold for six years? I would like him to publish a list of all contributors to his income – you can bet they are all funded by taxpayers.

Dr. Mann has a pattern of attacking those who disagree with him and this case is another in a long line of tactics to silence debate over the science of global warming. Dr. Curry is a stalwart supporter of free speech and believes it plays a crucial role in the advancement of scientific debate. She has an acute interest in the outcome of this case because should Dr. Mann prevail, he would be emboldened to continue his pattern of attacks against Dr. Curry and others like her, and others would be emboldened to do so.

My interest in global warming was initiated by two brilliant academics on the far left, David F. Noble of Toronto and Englishman James Heartfield and their analysis of the history of carbon trading. I am therefore immune to the laughable idea that Mann or any of his climate fraudsters are in any way left wing or have benevolent or idealistic motives.

References

Putting the hippies on the payroll: Green Capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance, by James Heartfield.

Just different lies from the same endless fountain of personal disconnection and self chosen victimhood on the part of people who have nothing of value to offer the world except the sound of their own complaints from the heights of privilege.

There is nothing left wing or progressive about climate change. Everything about it (especially expensive energy) hurts the poor most.

Climate scientists are simply useful idiots. Billions, possibly trillions of dollars of free carbon credits (license to produce CO2) were handed out to big business. In the absence of global warming lies, they would be worthless. Big business makes money out of it, it doesn’t lose anything

The Times

“Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza

LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming”.

More than that, Big Green is a multi billion dollar industry, much of it a front for Big Oil’s Enron created carbon trading scam.

Naomi Klein (Financial Times)

The whole affair, according to Klein, underlines a painful truth behind the “catastrophic failure” of some environmental organisations to combat the fossil-fuel industries responsible for soaring
greenhouse gas emissions. “Large parts of the movement aren’t actually fighting those interests – they have merged with them,” she writes, pointing to green groups that have accepted fossil-fuel
industry donations or partnerships and invited industry executives on to their boards.

(To me) left wing means wanting a more equal society, putting the interests of human beings before corporations. American corporate democrats supported the most brazenly criminal, corrupt and warmongering presidential candidate in history, Hillary Kissinger. She took $675,000 for 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs. A naked bribe.

I grew up in an incredibly left wing culture in Scotland where the Communist Party was seen as soft left.

Eric,
“(To me) left wing means wanting a more equal society, putting the interests of human beings before corporations. American corporate democrats supported the most brazenly criminal, corrupt and warmongering presidential candidate in history, Hillary Kissinger. She took $675,000 for 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs. A naked bribe.
I grew up in an incredibly left wing culture in Scotland where the Communist Party was seen as soft left.”

Thanks, that helps. It helps to explain your confusion and frustration as you struggle to reconcile the lofty ideals of “left wing”-ist nostrums with the reality of the hatred, destruction, and deadliness of the application of the political theories that are thought of as “left wing.”

You’re experiencing cognitive dissonance–a clash between the idealistic vision of a communist dream, and the cold, hard reality of actual communist/socialist/Politically Correct Progressive strategies and tactics.

“Left wing,” translates into, in the real world, anti-human, anti-individual, anti-progress, anti-normal beliefs. “Left wing” is totally based on lies–because their entire belief system is a lie.

“Left wing” is a corrupt and corrupting political/social ideology that brooks no dissent. Its adherents, when they gain power, eventually use their belief system to slaughter people with no mercy, to destroy functioning economies, to wreak havoc in social, cultural and political systems.

To be clear, due to being surrounded by socialism, I am an anti socialist, compassionate anarchist.

However I admit than I am ashamed to find a common cause with low intelligence, brainwashed Americans, responsible for vastly more death and destruction than all the socialism in history.

Samuel Johnson on Americans

“Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.”

I grew up in a professional family in Scotland who lived through WWII. They hated Americans. Everyone hated Americans. No one hated Germans. America sponsored Hitler, supplied the Nazi war machine throughout the war and invaded Europe after the Soviets had beaten the Nazis.

Guardian

IBM ‘dealt directly with Holocaust organisers

Guardian

How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power

MIT

In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.

NYT

Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration

Newsweek

In a 1984 interview, Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, claimed U.S. bombs “killed off 20 percent of the population” and “targeted everything that moved in North Korea.” These acts, largely ignored by the U.S.’ collective memory, have deeply contributed to Pyongyang’s contempt for the U.S. and especially its ongoing military presence on the Korean Peninsula.

“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged”.

“However I admit than I am ashamed to find a common cause with low intelligence, brainwashed Americans, responsible for vastly more death and destruction than all the socialism in history.”

Wow! Talk about cognitive dissonance!

American business was surely being done throughout the world before WW2. The fact that some American businesses were active in Germany doesn’t quite equal “more death and destruction than all the socialism in history.”

The best data, and analysis of that data, of democide and genocide combined is here:

Note that Socialist/Communist “utopias” are at the very top of the list, and are also well-represented all the way down the list. Nowhere to be seen, however, is the USA.

Or am I missing something? Where’s the death and destruction in America’s wake?

It must have taken great mental gymnastics to hate those who saved your country from oblivion and speaking German. The only reason there’s any such thing as a Scottish communist or socialist is because your country was safely tucked away under the protective defense infrastructure of the USA. And have been since WW2. Without American protection, the UK, and all of Europe would be either a communist hellhole, or a German satrap.

These organizations are in clear conflict with the virtually unanimous international scientific consensus on climate change.

Dr. Mann said in a Congressional Hearing that his global warming theory was as solid as the law of gravity. Anyone who can express that kind of certainty is almost guaranteed to be wrong. link He’s a hedgehog of the worst sort and should be excluded from polite company.

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

(Imagine a movie like “Groundhog Day” but the goal isn’t a successful relationship with Andie MacDowell, the goal is to successfully drive a stake through the rotten tiny “heart” of the CAGW scam. That footnote would have be one of the repeated scenes in it.)

Mr. Mann is only sounding his horn of alarm because his grant cash cow may be threatened by some amorphous, unconfirmed possibility of some kind and he has to be right up front to get attention for it.
If Ms. Mercer had nothing to do with the placard (because she wasn’t associated with the Museum in the 1990s) and he is using non sequitur statements to discredit her, then he hasn’t got a leg to stand on, and he knows it. Doesn’t matter – he will pump that promo for everything he’s worth until or unless someone shuts him up. When did Michael Mann have anything to do with that Museum before he wrote HIS letter?
I sincerely hope that the Museum has enough sense to not let this turn into a tabloidlike quarrel..

True indeed.
I sometimes even wonder whether he actually believes anything he says about global warming or the people he publicly abuses. What he clearly does believe in, is having his own name in the lime-light, center stage, all the time.

Self-promotion is, in no particular order, first, second, third, and fourth in his list of priorities.

The incredible thing is that people that actually voted for her are STILL mad she lost.
In a way, it’s almost encouraging that there are still moments that I’m literally rendered speechless. Outrage means I still care.

“Let’s be clear: This is not about partisan politics”
Yes, let’s. It’s about a climate witch-hunt, and about pushing Climatist propaganda, pretending that it is about truth and science. “Partisan”? What a lame straw-man.

Well, unfortunately it has largely devolved into that in this age of millenials. The vastly outnumbered conservatives/moral absolutists have been shouted down by willfully ignorant post-modernist neo marxist who can’t seem to break free from identity politics, nor who understand the irony of that worldview. I have tried every method of discourse I can conjure to explain that a bridge (the collective of progress) cannot ever rest on a solid foundation of broken bricks (the individual). They can’t even comprehend that analogy (which by the way I think is stellar)

So, what ought not to be even remotely partisan has become such, and the real sad part is with any conflict or dialectic, only one party need to participate. A party of reason will necessarily be dragged into combating the falsehoods of the offending party. I have had this discussion with left leaning ideologues more than more conservative types because those are the brow beaters. Here is what I found out:

They don’t know a daggum thing that hasn’t been parroted on a MSM headline (saveFox of course), and typically it is evident they only read the headline.

“So, what ought not to be even remotely partisan has become such, and the real sad part is with any conflict or dialectic, only one party need to participate. A party of reason will necessarily be dragged into combating the falsehoods of the offending party. ”

I agree, it shouldn’t be remotely partisan. What do you mean, only one part need participate?

If you start out with the view that you are the party of reason and the other is the party of falsehood, why bother talking? If you not only think they are wrong, but they have no integrity, no honesty, there is no sense in talking to or listening to you. It’s not the same playing field.

The deniers who believe that cilmate science is full of fraud and corruption are not worth attention from a scientific viewpoint because there can be no discussion based on reason or evidence if one side simply says the other is lying. Deniers are worth everyone’s attention, though, because they are affecting policy. Maybe with more exposure to the original 20-yr-old documents describing the propaganda campaign that’s swayed them, those who now think climate science is a global conspiracy will begin to wonder if that’s just a little far-fetched. And then if they really think about it, about the logistics and mechanics of maintaining a lie among such a loosely-connected people in a profession that has at its heart the elimination of bias (if the deniers only knew it!)…maybe then they might see that such a conspiracy is completely impossible.

Do you hear your language? using terms like “deniers” immediately discredits you because you are employing a logical fallacy. You may have some valid points but you basically show your bias and lack of understanding by using that politicized terminology.

“If you start out with the view that you are the party of reason and the other is the party of falsehood, why bother talking?” Is that not how the left operates? That is exactly my point. The modern left, or at least major factions (of that group/party/believers, whatever you want to label it) have been schooled by post-modernist (no such thing as objective truth) neo-marxists (had to change the game plan when they failed in the Soviet). This worldview is comprised that even things such as biology (two definite defined genders) are merely just social constructs. The world is what they feel it is, and anyone holding a counterpoint who is using logic is merely using the tools of an oppressor. This is critical to note, because the nature of that worldview is what lends to SJW types and virtue signaling.

The modern green leaning types like to align themselves with what they feel is a worthy cause, and then proselytze everyone to their elevated morality and belief system (yes, this is religious in nature). The really unfortunate part is that they steal others money through taxation to meet their own moral highground game plans, allthewhile doing absolutely NOTHING to change real, tangible problems such as pollution, or chemical spills, or air quality, water quality, etc etc. This is a very self-centered and lazy method of operation and I am going to call it out every single time.

As to only one party needing to participate. IF an independent third party wants to manipulate an outcome, said party only needs to manipulate one of two competing parties or groups, or even an indivual actually. Then, when the affected party starts to operate on the false information of the third party, the opposing party has no choice but to push back against an obvious falsehood. That is why only one party needs to be misguided. And in reality, there is much that the right have unfortunately done to the same effect, its just not Global Cooling, wait I mean global warming, no wait, climate disruption, no wait…. climate change! thats the one.

by the way, the push for environmentalism and humans are evil, that nonsense…it goes back much farther than 20 years, so if you are serious about finding the truth (which it seems from your comment maybe you are not) then go through the rich history of Maurice Strong (Corbett and Richard Grove do a fantastic job exposing that horrific creature) as well as many other major players, especially the high priest Al Gore who made out like a bandit with all his insider assistance from government for his green technologies. the information is there, its available, and it will shock you. I say it will shock you because you clearly don’t understand how major conspiracies work, and you use the same old false argument which amounts to “governments are incompetent at best” all the while completely ignoring how the major players operate. I’m so irritated and frustrated with the people who do not recognize that very wealthy people have large influence and will use both to continue to dominate, and protect their interests, and eliminate competition. If you were truly interested in learning how this monstrous deception has evolved, the information is readily available regarding falsification of data, piggybacking of false information as the grounds for second and third generation information, funding from government in grants and how those not participating in the false theory of CAGW get no funding, the political pressures put on scientists who don’t bow down to the climate modelst theories, etc etc etc. You could study for a year and still find new information. So please, spare my your ignorance on the topic, because it is exactly just that.

Regarding my personal opinion? I fell for it. I voted for Obama the first time (what a monumental mistake in hindsight) when I was at Penn State, I believed all the talking points because I was legitimately IGNORE-ant of the information. Then I got put in my place by someone years ago who asked me if I knew how many gigatons of CO2 were in the atmosphere, and what percentage of total atmosphere it made up…and I realized wow, I don’t know even the most basic information. 8 years later I have come to the conclusion that climate-science as it sits today is nonsense. It is a global wealth redistribution scheme. period. And that is very unfortunate, especially if we descend into another cooling phase like the LIA.

I wish you well, but please have you basics down before you use a pejorative term like denier. Also, what “evidence” do you have outside of climate models, which, conveniently have all been wrong?

“The modern left, or at least major factions (of that group/party/believers, whatever you want to label it) have been schooled by post-modernist (no such thing as objective truth) neo-marxists (had to change the game plan when they failed in the Soviet).”

If we don’t understand who our opponents are, what their belief system is, and their strategy and tactics, we’re doomed to fail in attempts to mitigate their damage.

You’re on the right track with your parenthetical realization that you don’t have the proper terminology of their belief system, or what/who they are–“whatever you want to label it.”

It’s an important point.

The political/social/cultural phenomenon you perceive, but can’t quite identify, is best termed “Politically Correct Progressivism.”

The belief system has 6 tenets, and an action corollary. Every PC-Prog political argument is based on one of these beliefs. And they are all based on hatred of Normal-America.

1. Normal-America is irredeemably racist. Minorities live a life of constant harassment and hopeless repression by Normal-Americans.
2. Normal-America is virulently sexist. Women live lives of desperate hopelessness. They are forced by the patriarchy to accept social and professional roles that demean and diminish them. Normal-Americans aggressively try to restrict women’s rights to kill fetuses.
3. Normal-America is homophobic. Christian haters thump Bibles in their quest to locate, persecute, prosecute and lynch fun-loving homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, and bi-sexuals.
4. Normal-America is stunningly xenophobic. Normal-Americans loathe foreigners. Normal-American society rejects all foreigners and views them as vile, dirty, stinking beasts with unintelligible accents.
5. Normal-America is graspingly imperialist. Normal-Americans seek to conquer, destroy and subjugate peace-loving native cultures in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia. America is built on a legacy of imperialist destruction of Native American and Hispanic cultures.
6. Normal-America is greedily capitalist. The American economy destroys poor people with angry demands that they must work. The economy is systematically manipulated by the 1% in order to
subjugate the 99%. Capitalism rewards only the lucky few, while the masses suffer. The American economy is boiling Gaia’s atmosphere–causing horrible things to happen.

These tenets are the core of PC-Prog politics. The beliefs are nearly religious. To be a member, one must never contradict these tenets (in public, or in privately recorded conversations.)

The corollary to the tenets of PC-Progressivism is the “Action Requirement.”

That’s exactly what the Manns, Hansens, Gores, and the rest of the climate clique demand: Destruction of the greatest, fairest, most prosperous society in the history of the world.

For what? Because their belief system demands it. That’s all they have. There is no reason, or rational thought. Pure emotion and hatred. Very, very powerful forces. And very successfully harnessed about 100 years ago. The seeds and the wind were sown then. We’re reaping the whirlwind now.

So, post-modernist neo Marxists, as Dr. Jordan Peterson so aptly recognized.
I was playing the game of the lefties of you didn’t catch that… Purposefully all inclusive. I’ve yet to [meet] a single person left of center who hasn’t wholly bought into the collective. It’s a disease of the mind and death to the individual, as well as true holistic living, which is what they pretend they want.

I don’t do well with moral relativism. Those who are on the left use it to justify all sorts of suppression of free will couched under the umbrella of diversity and tolerance. Right… Had anyone ever been to Boulder, Colorado? The whitest town in America (while simultaneously espousing self-loathing) claiming the moral high ground regarding ethicality and the poor, yet they insulate themselves from anyone of culture or color by Central planning of everything. It’s disgusting. They halted growth so everything is inflated, housing etc. They drive audi’s and other elitist vehicles. Homeless run amock throughout the city because they encourage it. Seriously, these people love to live on filth so long as they can go back to their overpriced homes in comfort where there is zero diversity. They absolutely despise conservatism or moral boundaries (ie, it’s always wrong to steal even if you want to justify it). They are anti humanist while claiming the opposite and they are extremely selfish. It’s called projection or transference I think. Hateful. Prideful. I could go on. I’ve interacted with enough of the people in that town to make these assertions. But it’s not just localised to Boulder, it’s the poison that is the worldview they’ve committed to and it had no place in a truly civilized and voluntary society. There are no bounds to their hypocrisy.
They epitomize centralization and Marxism run amock. The self deceit in that lot is staggering.

The silly thing is this sounds like a conservative speaking; I’m not. I’m someone who advocates for voluntaryism. It’s just that I despise liars and the left currently maintains that Monopoly, although there is certainly room to criticize the right… They just pale in comparison

“This whiny op-ed makes me want to pu” – – ke! Seriously! I (we) understand it’s ALL about the money. But it has now gotten so bad that, at least here in the US, i seriously doubt we will EVER get back to a point of rationally discussing the REAL science involved. Or for that matter, the REAL facts in almost any another issue. This is particularly disturbing to us elders because we know a day in the past when consensus didn’t rule, when one side didn’t attack the other side, when you could have a debate, a serious conversation and at worst agree to disagree. And most unfortunate of all, is that 90 some % of the “attacking” (and mostly attacking of individuals, rather than positions or ideas) is coming from one side – –

I have stressed that point before. The Climatist have the money, the press, and the support of the majority of scientists. They ought to be sitting on their laurels and mearly “tut tuting” at the antics of their opponents. Instead they are the ones that are resorting to ‘ad hominem’ attacks, vitriol, and wire fraud. Why are they straining at a gnat?

The AGW crowd dont have the majority support of the scientists who really count like the astrophysicists, the chemical geologists, the climatetologists that dont use computer models but who observe and analyze real data, the PhDs in atmospheric physics, the PhDs in thermodynamic chemistry, the PhDs in oceanography and meterology, the PhDs in aerospace engineering, the PhDs in nuclear engineering, the PhDs in Earth systems engineering and the like. These are the real scientists along with the PhDs in mathematics and statistics that study atmospheric phenomenon. The vast majority of these scientists know that AGW is a hoax. The problem is that they all dont belong to the same organization and thus never really organized themselves as a real lobby group. Scientists never thought they needed to lobby. Lobbying seems the antithesis to science thus they let the climatologists who run computer models steal the show. Lets not forget that climatology really only got recognized as a separate science with the creation of the NOAA in 1970. Before that it was a mishmash of meterology and climate geology. NOAA brought it into a separate discipline. Unfortunately NOAA started believing in computer models. They went downhill after that to the sorry state of computer modelled climatogy that we see today.

I am trying to understand the logic that some people have without success. There are so many things that go beyond logic. There is stupid and more stupid.

As I researched this I changed from kind of finding it humorous to finding it terrifying. See below.

In the American Museum of Natural History there is an exhibit installed in the 1993 that states: There is no reason to believe that another Ice Age won’t come. In the past, warm cycles lasted about 10,000 years, and it’s been that long since last cool period. Human-made pollutants may also have an effect on the Earth’s climatic cycles.”

This resulted in protests and angry posts and letters accusing the museum of being “anti-science” and promoting “climate science misinformation”, and in particular, vilifying a scientifically-engaged trustee of the museum, Rebekah Mercer.
Rebekah supported President Trump and since he is a skeptic of manmade climate change she must be and therefore must be removed from the board. Mercer did not join the museum’s board of trustees until 2013, 20 years after that 1993 exhibit had been installed. The protestors might have different political views from Mrs. Mercer. But, they are not entitled to use the false claims of “anti-science propaganda” and “climate science misinformation” for their ideological campaigns.

Michael Mann, is a Penn States professor that is one of the leaders for the advocacy of man-made climate change. If you disagree with him you are an anti-science idiot. Such good behavior from a professor. He penned a editorial in the NY Times calling for the resignation of Mrs. Mercer because she supported Trump and gave money to organizations that he disagrees with and may not support Mann’s version of man-made climate change. He uses the word denier over and over in the editorial. Since she did this the museum is discredited and its reputation will be damaged.

There is some sanity in that a counter letter signed by many scientists and others was written supporting the museum. But, that will not get posted all over the internet because there are not people with protest signs being filmed.

In summary:

A person does not like the wording on a placard on an exhibit installed in the American Museum of Natural History that was put in place in 1993 because it under states the perceived man’s contribution to it.

That person organizes a protest that the wording is wrong and should be changed. They call for the resignation of a Trustee that was a generous supporter of the museum but supported President Trump who was not a Trustee until 2013.

The museum responds with a reasonable explanation.

Protests are held and letters are written condemning the museum and the Trustee. Calling for their resignation.

Michael Mann a Penn State professor whom you would hope the University would hold to some decorum pens a letter to the editor in the NY Times calling for this Trustee to resign because she supported President Trump and other organizations that Mann does not support.
He has dug into her affairs to know exact numbers that she has given to various organizations. He attacks and makes unsubstantiated accusation after another against the Trustee, a private individual not associated with the University. He goes out of his way to insert denier into the letter.
What type of individual does this? How can he stay on as a Professor? This type of conduct is reprehensible.

I am trying to wrap my arms around this. Think about how perverted the thought process is and how so called well educated people take part in this. How brainwashed and clueless can they (by implication, we) be?

As I’ve said before, I prefer “Meltdown Mann”.
It does bring to mind the science behind Piltdown Man but it also describes his trea ring readings and his reaction to anyone who disagrees with his collusions. (Just who funds his lawsuits?)
This guy is more bent than his hockey stick.

There is no reason to believe that another Ice Age won’t come. In the past, warm cycles lasted about 10,000 years, and it’s been that long since last cool period. Human-made pollutants may also have an effect on the Earth’s climatic cycles.”

On January 6th, a visitor to the museum, Dr. Jonah Busch, objected on Twitter to the last paragraph and claimed that the museum was “promoting misinformation on climate change”.

So …. this guy is upset because the placard says the climate might change and there could be another Ice Age?
To say that might happen is “promoting misinformation on climate change”!?!?
So then, saying the climate will stay the same would be promoting correct information on “climate change”!?

This guy is famous for a hockey stick temp chart that denies there was a Little Ice Age and a Medieval Warm Period. Ironically, his paper came out in 1998, the second year of what was to be a dreaded 18yr hiatus in temperature rise. Putting this long flat stretch on the end of his chart and replacing the LIA and the MWP. gave rise to what I call the scythe chart if you turn it upside down.

Actually all these guys are one (Nature’s) trick ponies (hockeystick iterations, Travestyberth looking for missing heat, Wadhams revising his doomsday for Arctic ice…) who make a forty yr lucrative year career and then a 30 year retirement bonanza of 75% of his salary all with stuff that a new generation are going to have to cull out of a bloated worthless information-free literature. In their waning years, even they get tired of their own crap, dismount their ponies and publish entertainment tabloid op eds, and ad hom hit pieces on real live scientists.

If I were Pres. Trump, I will respond to this petition by Mann et al by giving Rebekah Mercer the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her public contributions as a patron of science and culture. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an award bestowed by the President of the United States and is the highest civilian award of the United States. It recognizes those people who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” If you want to know who deserves recognition, just see who Mann is attacking.

Unfortunately Mann’s behavior is being duplicated throughout society in many many areas. There almost seems to be an insanity present in the world that is turning people into blathering illogical beings and there is minimal public push back against their behavior. There are no consequences for the behavior therefore it continues.

I guess it ends when they eat themselves as each and every living human being has faults that can be exploited and it is just a matter of time before the ones lecturing us become the lectured to. It is already happening in some political circles as one set of victims realize that they are no longer the victim of the week.

Whether warming is occurring or not, there is no evidence that CO2 is the driver of said warming, only assumptions based on poorly supported hypotheses. A house of cards.

The inconvenient facts are that (1) on geologic time scales (hundreds of millions of years, i.e., Geocarb reconstructions), there is NO correlation between CO2 level and temperature which suggests that CO2 “drives” the Earth’s temperature; instead, the Earth’s temperature has varied between two extremes that are unaffected by the CO2 level, AND there are significant episodes that indicate CO2 cannot possibly have the “temperature driving power” that AGW zealots assume it has (see 450mya, with TEN TIMES today’s CO2 level – and with CO2 rising – while the Earth’s temperature plummets into a full blown glaciation – which should be IMPOSSIBLE if CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere); and (2) on shorter time scales (tens of thousands of years, i.e., the ice core reconstructions, CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, up AND down, suggesting temperature driving CO2, NOT the other way around.

So your baseless assertion of “denial” misrepresents what the “issue” actually is, and it’s obvious that you’re clueless about it.